had last friday, march 4, and what happened last week, of course, was they extended funding for another two weeks. republicans have said that's a possibility if they don't reach a deal. not everybody is thrilled about that possibility but i don't think anybody, at least from a political standpoint, wants a shutdown. however if they don't come to an agreement of some sort, they face a very tough choice between letting the government shut down or doing another one of these continuing resolutions. .

>> this will be a discussion about the hearings on the radicalization of the muslim community which will start tomorrow at 930. we believe there is a lot of misinformation that will come out of the hearing. it has been our great concern that they have made a number of anti muslim statements.

we intend to step that. we will dive straight into letting the speakers represent their group. we will have an open question and answer session at the end. please come to identify yourself by name and organization. if each of the speakers would make sure you stay your name, organization. speaking first will be -- >> thank you. they announced tomorrows plan. more than 250 organizations have

written to him expressing concerns about the allegation. more than 80 representatives have expressed similar concern. there are concerns that american muslims will not cooperate with law enforcement and 84% of the leadership is a demonstrably false. officials including the commander -- and a board member of the national organization say muslims in their community cooperate. this week, a former fbi director rejected allegations of muslim noncooperation.

there are multiple occasions. academic research has these claims. duke university found that tips provided information that led to its being ported in 120 cases. leaders have put significant efforts into comforting violent extremism. there is no denying that people had the opportunity recruit. that includes that of the islamic faith.

the muslim community is there. there is no denying no institutions including members of our community deserve a share of that. they have maintained that it is a civic and religious duties for criminal activity. equally, like other civil liberties organizations, we advised our community to know their constitution.

our community has reasonable concerns with some law enforcement activity and apologies. some of these concerns is brought surveillance of muslim institutions. there are concerns about the fbi and other agencies pursuing the lines of questioning protected by activity.

this includes african-americans, and asian-americans, japanese- americans, catholics, mormons, and many others. they have been singled out in other nation's history. american muslims would do a disservice. we also asked our non-americans and not to succumb to peer mar gramm -- to fear mongering. we ask the members of the public to communicate and get to know them in personal visits. we believe this is the best way to know one another.

we demand political and religious leaders. ladies and gentlemen there were principles. we have to tell them not to divide our nations. many of our positions on terrorism have been condemned without an organization. there are reluctant to work with law enforcement. this is a false accusation. we are backing of the main allegation.

he will have no research to substantiate the allegations. [unintelligible] his bias makes him unfit to lead a very important committee like homeland security. thank you. >> our next speaker is michael from the american civil liberties union. >> thank you. i and the legislative chief of staff and pairs of men a counsel for the american civil liberties union. -- and a member of the council for the american civil liberties union. thank you for inviting us. the american civil liberties union supports their right of individuals under the u.s. constitution and bill of rights to speak and associate free of

government hindrance and be treated fairly without discrimination. we support peter king's right to voice his opinions and no matter how well informed baby. professional and careers like legislation must not intend on first amendment rights, rights to speak freely and associate freely. targeting the american muslim community for an alleged and erroneous connection to demand action -- to domestic terrorism. this is what america sometimes does when faced with crisis and fear. john adams sought and got the alien act. thousands were arrested for anti-war abuse during the world war roman one era. the japanese americans were tossed into internment camps.

senator mccarthy met his downfall. he met his downfall when they said "had you know sense of decency -- have you no sense of decency?" focusing on the entire american muslim community to reduce terrorism is bad law enforcement and based on erroneous facts and flawed policies and theories. there is a basic distinction between belief systems and violent or criminal actions. political moderates are required to full protection. they said that extremism is no vice. they have radical extreme beliefs. we can all hold such a release

of out this. these are pretty good subjects. the belief systems are not. they have a missed opportunity to find the similarities among all of those that commit acts of violence. there is more in common with a tax protester that flew a plane into the irs builds and -- iris building. to focus is investigation solely on the american muslim community to based on a discredited police department report, there is a flawed. radicalization. he wants to gain cooperation and

misses a chance to come up with a theory that might do some good. we encourage mr. king sued investigate this and drop evidence based inclusions that might help law-enforcement gain a greater understanding of what moves a person from nonviolent to violence. thank you. >> thank you very much. our next bigger is with the muslim public affairs council. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i am a government and policy analyst. last name, beutel.

i come here today as a region as anve of t american and a muslim. when i look at what has happened today with the peter king hearings and what has been taking place over the past few months, is that there is a serious lack of an adult conversation right now on the issue of violent extremism facing our nation. if anything, what has been taking place is that represented king has engaged in political theater rather than problem- solving. as the other speakers have mentioned, everyone agrees that terrorism is a serious threat that affects our entire nation and that we all have to stand strongly against. divisive rhetoric that splits apart our community, undermined our values, and mrs. the threat

is counterproductive -- and that it misses the threat is counterproductive. we feel that in order to have an adult conversation we need to make sure be let the data needed the discourse. according to the muslim public affairs council, the post-9/11 terrorist incident data base, we have found to out of every five al qaeda related plots threatening the united states since 9/11 has been dotted with the assistance of muslim communities. -- has been thwarted with the assistance and muslim communities. it has actually spies to 3/4. although he has many abroad brash statements, this is demonstrably false.

the number of law-enforcement officials have come forward and given their support in favor of the muslim community. "if he has any evidence of now corp., he should bring it forward." i do not know what he is hearing. he also invited represented keen to come to los angeles county. thatore we have heard is the rep has not taking him up on that. we had former fbi counter- terrorism agents say that "the community has a multiple occasions come forward and assisted with law enforcement."

our message right now is that we feel that going forward and we need to be treated as partners and not as suspects. america's diversity is its strength and not its weakness. thank you very much. >> thank you. up next is the islamic circle of north america. >> good morning. high end the vice president of the islamic circle. the islamic circle of issues and it denounces the plan from a national inquiry.

the committee on homeland -- on homeland security will hold a meeting. hearings and nothing but a political stunt. he is well known for his anti- muslim sentiment. he has declared erroneously that muslims control 80% of market in america. that is an upsurge -- that is an upsurge observation. the congressional inquiry is based on such unfounded claims. the proposed hearing that cast doubt on an entire community by virtue of its faith, encouraging the values of religious freedom that are protected by the constitution. our country stands for justice,

equality and tolerance. none are up held by his hearings. he wants us to believe that these hearings are creating a better america. we believe that these baseless acquisitions and biased increase would only serve to have suspicion of law-abiding citizens. it would provide fuel and put the american muslim community in serious danger. he must stop capitalizing on the -phobis.islam 4 officials were in a rally. another official further divide the nation. they have remained silent for

far too long. there is the rise of anti sentiment. 7 million muslims deserve more than to be treated as guilty until proven innocent. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am here on behalf of -- i am a member of the board of trustees at the organization. thank you. i think my voice is a grass- roots efforts from american muslims looking to present the boys on issues affecting muslims and islam. through the use of video messages and maybe our reach, it provides the american muslim community and on my platform to

speak directly to america. this week we are calling on american muslims to speak up and present our own narrative recalling the false allegations by representative peter king of. we are working on broadcasting our own public service announcement during the hearings. it will offer a balanced perspective. if your interested on that psa, please see me after this and i can give you that info. in the recent past, peter keane has made unsubstantiated claims that -- these claims are not true. it goes against what the majority of american muslims believe. they also bring about more hate, misunderstanding, and assure me nation. and it discrimination. the reality is that american muslims are peaceful, caring people that generally love their

country and want to not make it a better place. they were to get back to the broader community their careers, it teachers, doctors, engineers, public surface, firefighters, and other professions. many participate in public service activities. mosques actually help to facilitate many committee service events in social activities. we started my faith, my boys, because american neat to see who we are and what we do. we feel i stories often not hold. the candid nature allows people to see for themselves what the average muslim things on a variety of issues. we know that not everyone has a muslim friend and neighbor. we can hear stories like that he

is motivated to get back they help establish a soup kitchen. they will soon open their doors. we have posted over 200 videos on our web site. these are real stories. as a muslim american born and raised in america, this is my home. as a high-school teacher and mother to a beautiful daughter, i am passionate about getting the word out to people about who the average american muslim is. i dedicate my tie to certification the broader community. i believe in the american democratic system. we are reaching out to end discrimination.

i hope that our efforts provide a platform for people to hear the truth and ignore the false of being spread so that my children will be able to enjoy and appreciate the rights and freedoms that i have. >> thank you very much. >> good morning. i and the president of the muslim american society. my name is mohammad dawood > we are voicing our concern

regarding the upcoming hearings. as citizens of the united states and as an integral part of the american interfaith community in u.s. society, we are keenly aware of the challenges and dangers facing carnation. muslims have been victimized by social violence, and seek to harm people in our nation. we have articulated the fact that random act of violence contradict the core values of our faith. we have come to the existence of legitimate law-enforcement officials who have brought such plans to our community. whether such plot that involves muslims, christians, or other

religions or no faith at all, it is on the fabric of virus sense of moral value. -- it is on the fabric of our sense of moral value. anywhere they live, we have challenged both the actions and the motivations behind them. muslims have challenged plots involving muslim individuals were such actions have threatened the nation. all of these things are well known to the agencies. they are charged with the responsibility of protecting all of us. we are concerned that the hearings will not uncovering new information. nor will be hearings examine the present in american society and groups that openly deal with the

overthrow of the government had hatred of immigrants. every year than violence kills many americans. these proceedings will give voice to people with clear and those who made demonization of did a religious community. 80% is headed by radicals. he himself took a leap into the pool of religious bigotry. it casts aspirations on entire religious community.

the hearing has been compared to the 1950's hearing by joe mccartney him use his position to persecutes and destroyed the lives of countless innocent citizens. xenophobia exist in our national history. it is manipulated by some forces. it masquerades as objective fact. it is contrary to the best practices.

they stand with the muslim community. our religious traditions may be diverted. there are bound together by truth. they are honoring the law of peaceful coexistence with our neighbors in the building a stronger communities. we will continue to educate and nurture with the positive understanding of the values. the best practices of muslims will over campbell -- will overcome all prejudices. our fate will be a blessing for this great land of freedom that

we seek to better serve ourselves. thank you very much. >> thank you. our next speaker is with the council of muslim organizations. >> good morning. i am [spelling name]. i represent the council of muslim organizations in the washington area. on behalf of the council representing over 100 mosques, schools, and organizations in washington, we want the community to know that our council has hosted numerous meetings with law enforcement. -- and community forms against

relegation. we have provided consultation and information with them, specifically about some of the cases that were mentioned earlier in this press conference. we have traveled on behalf of the state department to foreign countries to speak about radicalization and our commitment as american muslims. i want to say today that we are not in denial that something is going on. there are bad apples in every community. it is our role to gathered together and look for justice, to identify individuals who have malfeasance. our data have shown that the american muslim community has been in the forefront. there is something going on with mr. king's hearing.

he is onto something that he is moving in the wrong direction. if i could quote, "this approach is like finding a needle in a haystack by adding more hay." the american muslim community has been a faithful friend to the law enforcement of been the subject of investigations. the american-muslim community is the best defense that we have against radicalization in america among muslims. it is our opinion that if you look into the american muslim communities response, we have done a lot. we have much more to do. we will call on others to say why not be a constructive partner in the war against

terror and to recognize that the study showed the number of muslims will double in the next two decades? we are here to stay as a community. when we remain community -- committed. thank you. we have two speakers that came late. welcome to famous d c traffic. >> good morning.

i am representing of virginia muslim coalitions. we are addressing awareness and engaging our elected officials on issues that affect all americans. i am sure my colleagues pointed this out already. in 2004, 80% of the mosques are controlled by islamic fundamentalists and that average muslims are loyal but do not come forward. they did not tell the police what they know. they will not turn in their own. in 2007, represented king said "we have too many mosques in this country." in early 2010, rep picking

implied that american muslims are not true americans -- rep kina implied that american muslims are not americans. i disagree with your assessment. in fact, you have never been able to support your statements with any factual data. here are some facts. i am part of a group of muslim leaders which cover major organizations in northern virginia here are a part of -- arab muslim communities. we need on a regular basis. community leaders are engaged ts ifa, homeland security engaged homeland and

security. many tears plots were reported. the muslim community and the leadership has the same goals as congressman peter king it. that is to protect our country from any harm, foreign or domestic. however, singling out a group of americans for government scrutiny based on faith or race is divisive and wrong. if you look back into the history of our nation, many other communities have suffered similarly. african-americans, a jewish americans, japanese americans, a catholic americans, and irish americans. even more to even martin luther king now has a federal

holiday named after him and won a nobel peace prize was granted the most dangerous and ineffective the negro leader of the country. in an fbi memo, they labeled mr. king as degenerate. it is about time we as americans put a stop to this practice. let all of us work together to protect this great nation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next we have the bill of rights defence committee. >> thank you. shasid, buttar. i am the executive director of the bill of rights defence

committee. as a constitutional leader, there are two particular prospectus. the political theater that is in the committee is not a crisis confronting the american community. this is affecting the united states. inclusion has led at the heart of our nation's promise to the world as well as the strength that we have -- on which we have predicated this country's growth. the 7 million americans of all ethnicities who comprise the american muslim community in deserve more than guilt by suspicion. especially when you consider the interests at stake, the freedoms to believe, speech, to associate. these are fundamental and in the

first amendment for a reason. these are interval -- integral to our society as a whole. when the compromise them for a community, it sets a precedent to open the door for more. i will note 1 kanye into one call that -- i will note one caveat. there is the import of bias from the executive branch work it has long been a visible. there is a difference between the fbi and the house homeland security community. the fbi has undermined it the right to associate the right to speech and free belief. there is the real shame of pervasive infiltration that remain secret to the public and the press. there had not been an adequate oversight. it should not comfort does about this being dragged into the

public arena. it is unlike the fbi. it is not a government agency that is in the business of violating americans rights since the day of the earliest of session. unlike the fbi, at the house homeland security is not a government agency -- [unintelligible] the house homeland security committee is not the government agency that has lied to congress and refused to defend its policies. my concern is the embrace of bias and xenophobia in a body and that has done this before. it is a central ingredient and mccarthyism that he now aims to replicate. as rep king aims to be the eugene mccarthy, it is important for all of us to know the dis ingenuity of the effort.

a.c. interested in investigating the root of extremism, he would explore the threat by people the bombed federal building spirit if he were sincerely interested, he would explore the threats by people who've flown people into the irs buildings in texas. he is not. these are the threats. represented king is interested in scoring cheap political points. this is a threat. it should concern all of us, not just as americans but as americans committed to defending our nation's most shares of fundamental values. thank you. >> >> finally, we appreciate your patience with us.

the committee with a lot to say from different perspectives. he will keep is remarks fairly brief. he is a nice gentlemen. will get right to your question. >> we stand united with our muslim brothers. people are conscious. people have noticed.

they are condemning the efforts. it may have some good intentions. this process will not serve any public's. it will create it. it is the same type of environment that has made it s in the united states. if you look, it is not so bad that they will be able to raise it. i stand united with every people

up conscious you fear -- and continue rebuilding the the society. and we have to venture in terms of bad our public. i expressed myself. we do stand united. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. there is there but to be said. almost everything he heard will not be present. that is what the hell this press conference. i like to dive into questions. >> i am with cbs news. i wanted to tell you that even if you can argue that process

9/11 that the irs -- and the murder was active terrorism, isn't it true that the mass majority of terrorism sur's radical islam. i wondered what group would be investigated. >> is not a brand new thing.

as far as the issues of the act of terrorism. you focus on those acts. you look at successful acts of terrorism. you let them for the past 50 years. it is quite narrow in that sense. if you are trying to develop a theory of what turned someone from non-violence to violence, you look at all of the actors that engage in that. >> haven't the vast majority of terrorist threats had links? >>-nobody has done a good job of

qualifying that. there has been such a focus on the american muslim community. they are rooting out muslim connected acts of terrorism. we have not bought into its answer of deciding whether there have been many more acts of violence by those who are not motivated by ideologies. you can look at all of the on campus violence. do you include those se? we do not know the answer to that. you are missing the opportunity to make this communities. >> i will take one question. we have so many. we want to get them in. >> i would like to know if you agree with his assessment that

congressman keen as on the 21st century? you said that congressman keen was onto something. i was wondering if you could elaborate on that. >> first of all, we would like to see how the hearings will proceed. we are looking at what mr. keene himself has said, how he has received the muslim community. he is not talking about the tiny number of american muslims who have been involved with acts of terrorism.

he was not recognized. he ignored the fact that the muslim community has not been cooperating. they have been the source of this. luckily, we have worked with them. they have announced that they were listening. they trying to go to pakistan. we worked with the fbi in combination. we get the information. that led to building that episode. the corporation should not lead it. i hope that he is not. from the way he is composing this hearing, there raises a lot

of concern. it is up to him to show that he is a mccarthy of the 21st century or he is not. >> just to echo what he said, if you look at the case of the five boys that went to pakistan, this is an example of young people who were radicalized. the data suggests that it was a by the internet. nonetheless, it creates an issue and concern for us of a community. how did this happen? what we did in that case -- that community, the parents were concerned about their children. they looked at the data.

let's call the fbi. that means that we have real- life examples of our partnership and something that really is going on. if your question is what do i mean by something going on, that was a real case. that was evidence of our full engagement. had we become more receptive partners in what we did rather than the eight parts of this witch hunt? texas that into your question. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to know -- none of your organizations were invited to take part? they have called the doctor.

i am wondering if it is acceptable. i welcome anyone to walk into any mosque in the united states and ask for united -- and as for organizations. he will not find that his name is well-known. i would suggest that is not connected to the activities. >> this is inconvenient witness

for peter king i. he would like [unintelligible] there is a history of cooperation. they go what is going on in the muslim community. he is a guest on the networks. it is what they like to year and not what they need to hear. >> he is the actual law enforcement person that is looking into why muslims are not cooperating. i think he would be a must authentic witness.

>> [inaudible] >> it refers to him as the highest-ranking jewish member of congress. >> i think that article get it right. even some members of the republican majority are uncomfortable with the rhetoric. i think he has gone up their

little too far. it will be interesting to see how that discomfort manifest itself. it'll go down a different path. they will recognize that the focus is a long way to go. there is a legitimate point of studying domestic terrorism. the been the focus is the wrong way to go. hot is interesting to how it plays out. >> less tried to get in as many questions as possible. >> religion does not need to be a part of this community.

>> this has happened before. kennedy when you is running for president, people with st. the pope was going to be in control of the country. it was entirely wrong to attack half but that way. our country is built for many different religions. we should remember that. we have a common enemy in the violent extremists. >> we have time for about one in two more questions. >> we have an opportunity to meet with some of the staff.

during the course of the discussion, it is more of a listening session. there weren't many questions asked. they were talking about the work our organization has been doing. overall, that was fighting tooth and nail to get it with stab to meet with us. outside of that, there has not been much else said. it seems like everyone has dug the trenches. >> no one has mentioned violent muslims by name. it is more than the reality. >> we talked about it.

the timing should not be exact you rate -- exaggerated. they should not treat it as guilty because the act of a few. those incidents that they have been involved in have been successful. we have condense those individuals. it is with his assertion about the muslim community. he has been biased. they are sending the message to young people. it to be as possible in attacking it.

>> anyone who commits this, we do not even consider them anymore. we do not allow anyone to attack the good name the issue is that it has been cut there. that would have been in the united states of america. >> to answer question, there is no diverting here that we are trying to do. been planning a front time low. we need to let law-enforcement know.

we have had a long track record , going back 25 years, dealing with this very issue. rep keene has decided to ignore all of the track record, all of the work that art organizations have done collectively and has embarked on political theater. at the end of the day, that is the concern that a lot of us are having. it is going down a path where it is violating people's civil rights and civil liberties, putting an entire religion on trial, and not actually going after the real criminal threats, which really concern all of us as american citizens.

>> to speak to your point directly, i did mention about the five. i don't to give the kids names. this is a real case. let's look at orange county in california. the muslim community identified a young person who was in the mosque who was beating in a way that they felt was not representative of islam. it was dangerous. they detained that individual, called law-enforcement, only to find out that the -- that this person was put up to this by the government. what a waste of resources, for the government -- rather than to cooperate with us, they put a person in our midst to encourage people to become violent. and we catch them.

we should have a hearing about that. how can we better engage and empower the muslim community to do just that? rather than for us to catch their paid informant. >> i cannot close any better than that. thank you very much. everyone is available for a one- on-one afterwards. we appreciate you coming out today. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now, the homeland security hearing holds its hearing on the muslim community tomorrow. we will have live coverage on c- span 3 and at c-span.org.

up next, a hearing on fcc next neutrality rules. house members thdebate and eliminating a program that provides mortgage refinancing. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning. it is "washington journal" about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see your signature interview programs. on saturday, it is "the ."mmunicator's you can watch our programming any time at c-span.org. it is all searchable at our c-

span video library. c-span, washington your way. a service provided by the cable companies. >> the federal communications commission recently instituted a net neutrality rules. these rules require that internet providers treat all data and content the same. the house commerce subcommittee held this hearing to look into those new rules. here is half an hour of opening statements. >> today, the resolution of disapproval i've filed to stop

the fcc from regulating the internet. this committee had a three-hour hearing with all five fcc commissioners. at the request of the democratic colleagues, i scheduled this hearing to shed more light on the impact of the fcc's rules for regulating the internet. i have introduced the resolution under the congressional review act. it is an expedited process to nullify agency rules. it requires a simple majority in each chamber and is a filibuster-proof in the united states senate. the form of the resolution is provided for in a statute and is not subject to amendment. senate majority leader harry reid describe the process as reasonable, sensible. we have an open and thriving internet thank you to our historical hands off approach.

the internet works pretty well. it is the government that does not. on december 21, 2010, the fcc instituted rules without statutory authority to do so. it is important to realize that the underlying theory of authority would allow the commission to regulate any interstate commerce and communications services on barely more than a when man without any additional input from congress. i do not want to see such authority to the federal communications commission. under the rationale, the authority is bounded only by its imagination. this new rule is little more than a weak attempt to get

around the d.c. circuit comcast ruling that the fcc failed to show it had a 30 to regulate the internet. my colleagues agree that the fcc has the authority to regulate internet at coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities. the fcc believes it has those authorities. this is an agency of seeing his congressional authority and its action will hurt investment and cost jobs. small cable and internet provider in my district recently wrote to me about her concerns. ", they threatened -- "they invested billions of dollars of private capital to build broadband it infrastructure to 90% of american homes. commissioners are looking in the rearview mirror, attempting to regulate the internet of

yesterday. how well companies be able to compete if we bear the brunt of the regulations while the giants go free. the internet is evolving. all members of the ecosystem need to work together to innovate. these efforts will cost jobs and dampen investment." this is not a partisan issue. in 2006, 50 democrats voted with us on the house floor to oppose the network neutrality for the legislation. some of the democrats are on the full committee. some are on the subcommittee. that was not a title to versus the title one approach. it was against the network neutrality rules.

dr. david farber warned on december 21, 2010 that the fcc will -- it becomes a creature of government rules- making. this will make it harder for a search to compete with incumbents. it will let the needed flexibility to compete. what is more universally damaging is the ability to destroy the possibility to raise capital.

we will also hear the rule transfer wealth to a petition providers. "that does not begin to grasp the problem for both parties. the transfer of wealth between two independent parties can be beneficial to one at the expense of the other. the transfer of wealth will cripple the party on which the other relies for its very existence and is propound -- and is profoundly harmful. it will cost jobs. there will hinder the necessary investment in network upgrades in which customers and network providers relied. let's keep the internet open and innovative. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. with that, i will recognize my friend from california. >> thank you.

i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for agreeing to a request on this hearing. it is a resolution against approval under the review rag. before we rush to consider this legislation, we would all benefit from hearing from companies, public interest groups, and economists. my concern is that there is an enormous disconnect between the facts and the majority's policy objectives. as we will learn today, technology innovators opposed the resolution. consumers opposed the resolution. and economists oppose the resolution. even broadband providers to not support the resolution. the cable industry says it supports the fcc order because

"is largely codifies the status quo which the industry is committed. it provides clarifying language around what constitutes reasonable network management. the alternative presented a stark and much worse risk." hearings resume we will hear similar testimony from at&t today. a poll showed the overwhelming public support for an open internet by a two-one margin. none of these facts seem to matter. the reason we are debating the disapproval resolution is that republicans claim that fcc regulation will stifle the internet and hurt our economy. but the fastest-growing, most

innovative companies in america, companies like google, amazon, netflix, and others say exactly the opposite. they urged the fcc to have open internet rules because "baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness." in fact, most of the internet companies wanted stronger rules than those adopted by the fcc. i wanted to get independent advice so are staffed contacted economist at stanford, and why you, usc, and other leading academic institutions. nyu, usc, and othery yo leading academic institutions.

they could choke of innovation by charging internet companies for the right to communicate with consumers. one of the costs of this misguided resolution is that it is distracting us from important telecommunications issues when we should be addressing them and we can do so in a bipartisan basis. we ought to be working together to grow our economy by freeing of spectrum. we should your do together to make our nation safer by building a broadband network for public safety. and we should be protecting taxpayers and consumers by enacting universal service reform. but we're not doing any of these things. we're wasting time about a destructive resolution that should threaten open innovation on the internet. i thank our witnesses for being here. i want to yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. why is the internet so

important? it enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town and around the world. it prevents a single entity, whether it is a broad and big enough for the government exercising total control it is a vital tool that helps small businesses compete and expand, pumping life into our economy. that is what an open internet is all about. one of our witnesses this morning, robin chase, embodies the importance of an open internet to our economy. she co-founded a car-sharing service available in more than two hundred cities across the u.s.. she used the of the nature of the internet to build her innovative business from the ground up without having to ask permission from verizon, at&t, comcast, or any other carrier or commission. these are her car numbers current 474 full-time employees. $186 million in revenue. 540,000 members. that is what open internet means

to our economy. if this debate we're having today is not just a solution in search of a problem, it is a resolution in search of a problem. if we want to move forward in a way that deals with this issue, comcast and agrees that it can live with these rules appeared at&t agrees they can live with these rules. the key to the internet is ensuring that it is open so that new companies, new applications, new gadgets are being invented on a daily basis in hundreds and thousands of cities across our country that utilize this engine for economic growth and keeps america's lead over the rest of the world. that is what makes us great, the open internet. if we allow a small number of companies to control how fast that change, that innovation moves, then we will be settling our ability to continue to be the engine of growth in the

world using the internet as our way revolutionizing the rest of the world. if you did not have an open internet, no facebook, no twitter, q, youtube -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will now turn to the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind my friend from massachusetts that we have all of those and we do not have net neutrality now. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. president obama has said that it is his priority to focus on jobs. he also said that his administration will avoid owners and unnecessary prevalencregulat stifle energy.

while the executive order does not apply to independent agencies, like the fcc, the president urged such agencies to follow it and the fcc chair says that he does agree with the orders and the bulls. if the fcc had taken this approach last year, we would not have needed this resolution today. if the fcc was truly weighing the cost and benefits of its action, the agency would not be attempting to regulate the internet. there is no crisis warranting intervention. the internet is open and thriving, precisely because we have refrained from regulating it. imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by chilling the very investment and innovation that we need to ensure that the internet keeps pace for the growing demand being placed on it. this will only hurt our economy. the internet is not broken. the market has not failed. to justify the grab for a

favored sector, the fcc is speculating about the possibility of future harm. a pallid, they never heard the old phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." we can go one step further. "if it ain't broke, do not cricket." the fcc confesses in the order -- do not break it." where is the rigorous cost benefit analysis? we reviewed the response to our faulfollow-up and is lacking. let's be clear. i do not believe we should be regulating the internet. but if we follow the f c c's logic, it will be regulating google and any number of other internet companies.

this affects not only what traffic internet users see, but can have a financial impact on web sites. should the fcc be determining whether google is engaged in undue discrimination. is there management risible. would it be prepared for the government to intervene because of the possibility of future harm without an analysis of current problems in market power? i think not. not for google and not for anybody else. ultimately, there is a question of authority. the sec has changed his story about where it is the power to -- the fcc has changed its history about where it gets the power to issue these rules. none are consistent with its own president and they're all in runs from the d.c. circuit comcast case where it has failed

to show its authority in this space. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. you gave an excellent explanation of why we should all support hj37. tibias system does possible, the internet has thrived, i think, in large part because this congress repeatedly has stated that we did not want it to be regulated and the fcc keeps attempting to get some nose under the tent, so to speak, so that, in the future, they can come back with really heavy- handed regulation. the 3-2 vote is simply an effort to establish the principle that the fcc can regulate the internet. it is not as important what they do now. but the fact they have the authority to do it -- hj37

would specifically say they do not have the authority. in l.a. thening an regulated and are met and we should keep it that way. -- it is happening in a deregulated way and we should keep it that way. >> thank you. thank you for being here. given the significance of the resolution under consideration today, i want to thank chairman walton for respecting the request of ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman, myself, and members of the subcommittee, to have a legislative hearing. i think it is essential that members of the subcommittee have an opportunity to hear from key stakeholders who are here today before voting on a resolution overturn the fcc

internet rules. it is interesting to listen to the statement that members make. this is all about an open and free internet. in fact, those words are really the hallmark of the internet. all of the reasons that my republican colleagues are saying they are doing this is fascinating. the stake holders themselves are on the other side of the issue. they do not believe that the light touch of the fcc is menacing. in fact, they have said and waited and we know the testimony. you have seen it, not only the testimony, but the letters that have poured into this committee, of groups and organizations across the country, from religious leaders to consumer

organizations to high-technology associations. they have always been and said do not do this. it is fascinating to me, but they say they are for an open internet after reviewing the record of where there have been abuses. we want to see consumers making the choice, not corporations. we want companies to grow and be successful. there is a long list of them, so many of them are constituent companies from my congressional district. i think that everyone here really needs to think very carefully about the direct and indirect consequences of passing this resolution. disapproving the fcc rules is a serious threat to our economy and i think it is a direct attack on transparency. it could also lead to further

uncertainty in areas beyond the december order, such as their ability to promote public safety and insure online safeguards that prevent piracy and protect children from accessing harmful internet content. as i alluded to a moment ago, the history of an open internet speaks for itself. businesses that rely on an open internet continues to grow. unopened internet continues to grow. a stunning example is ebay. in just over 15 years, it has gone from a living room started to a company that enables hundreds of thousands of americans and small businesses and entrepreneurs to sell their goods to consumers across the country and around the world. the significance to our economy is enormous. it is actually stunning. $60 billion in goods sold on ebay marketplace is globally in

2009 -- a similar story of success is netflix. in the last year, it has added 8 million new subscribers. with over two thousand employees and a physical presence in every state, netflix is continuing to grow. there is a reason for it. open, accessible, consumers making the choice. that is what we seek to protect. so why are the basic rules of the road essential to the continued growth of these companies? by preventing blocking and unreasonable discrimination, the internet can remain a source of innovation and new ideas. not a platform for consumers and businesses where they are told what sources of news, information, and entertainment they can access. the witnesses that are here today, we're all grateful to them. i want to express a very special thank you to robin chase who flew from paris, france to be

here today, only to fly back to berlin, germany this afternoon. that is one hell of a commitment, to come here and to speak on this really extraordinarily important issue. we are very grateful to her. i think that this is just one example among thousands of internet innovators who understand how the cra will hinder job creation and consumer choice. i am also pleased that members will be presented with the economics theory supporting the fcc rules. mr. chairman, thank you for making sure that we have this legislative hearing. i think the witnesses and i do not have any time to yield back. >> that is all right. i thank you for your comments. we look for to hearing from the witnesses. the prime minister of australia will be speaking to a joint

session of congress. at some point, we will recess. we're not allowed under our rules to meet during a joint session. i would like to point out how much we appreciate you being here. you had to fly from france and back to germany. we could have used high- technology, maybe, to get your testimony and take your questions. we could have worked on that. i would also like to point out for the record that this is our second hearing on this topic. we had all the fcc commissioners before. if it is equally divided among the democrats and the republicans. at the conclusion of this hearing, there will have been two hearings. probably one of the first times in history of the committee, the minority has more witnesses on the topic and the majority. we're trying to hear from people. we're trying to be fair and balanced about this. we look for it your testimony when we resume.

so i recessed the committee until after the prime minister. it is probably about an hour by the time members go and get back. it may be a little more. we can hang out, but not too far away. with that, the committee stands in recess.

>> potential republican presidential contenders are making stops in key primary states. bachman in michele bock an minnesota. >> in the house today, members debated a bill that would eliminate the emergency mortgage relief program. this program subsidizes mortgage refinancing for certain homeowners who owe more on the house and it is worth. this is about 45 minutes. what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution

151 and call for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 15, house resolution 151, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 836, to rescind the unobligated funding for the emergency mortgage relief program and to terminate the program. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on

financial services now printed in the bill. each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for printing in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18 in a daily issue dated march 9, 2011, or earlier, and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the cuts tomorrow marry 30 minutes to the the gentlewoman from -- customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: house resolution 151 provides for a modified open rule that allows any member to offer an amendment to the underlying bill as long as it is preprinted in the congressional record and complies with house rules. this rule continues to build on the commitment of the republican

majority to consider legislation in a more open, honest, and thoughtful way. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this resolution and the underlying bill. this legislation was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman, the chairman of the republican conference from texas, jeb hensarling, on february 28, 2011. and marked up in the financial services committee last week on march 3. this legislation went through regular order which included committee hearings prior to a markup and making the text of the legislation publicly available for members and the public to review prior to consideration in the committee on the house floor. the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, david dreier, has once again provided members of this body a transparent and accountable structure under which the rule we are debating

and discussing today. allowing members of both sides of this aisle and of this body to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation. h.r. 836 repeals the emergency mortgage relief program and rescinds and permanently cancels all unobligated funds. it directs the secretary of housing and urban development to conduct a study to determine the extent of passage of the usage -- of the passage of the emergency mortgage relief program. by covered homeowners, which includes members of the armed services, veterans, and gold star recipients. and lastly, it requires the secretary to submit a report to congress including the results of that study in identifying any best practices that could be applied to the emergency

mortgage relief program for covered homeowners. . the dodd-frank act established a $12 billion housing and urban development -- $1 billion housing and urban development emergency home opener relief program which provides loans or credit advances to unemployed borrowers who cannot pay their mortgage to make mortgage payments for a period of 12 months with a possible extension. these loans increase the amount of the homeowners in--' indebtedness or the borrowers' indebtedness so a borrow who who is unable to pay back either the original amount of principle or the additional loans made under the program would quite probably be worse off in the long run. these borrowers derived no benefit from the program and the government will suffer the losses from their event defaults. that's the way -- eventual

defaults. that's the way the program was set up by the democrat majority. continued government intervention and questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolongs our current economic crisis and ensures that the housing market will continue to struggle. the market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation so that we can get on with a full recovery. the deficit is expected to reach a record $1,650,000,000,000 this year while the national debt is well over $14 trillion and growing rapidly. as a matter of fact growing so rapidly that last month $230-plus billion as a deficit for one month, the largest in the history of this nation, was recorded. yet what do we hear out of the white house? spend, spend, spend.

including against this bill that they have offered to veto because it would save some money. the u.s. simply cannot afford to loan billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid. the obama administration in its f.y. 2012 budget proposal estimates that this program will have almost 98% subsidy rate. that means that for every dollar the government is expected up front to lose, 98 -- to lose 98 cents. on every dollar of this program the government right up front is expected to lose 98 cents. mr. speaker, no wonder, no wonder republicans are trying to go back and look at the programs. the massive spending programs not only by president obama and

former speaker nancy pelosi but also the committee chairman and those who brought these measures to the floor that have had a stunning impact on the economy of this country. also, h.u.d. regulations set up a process where the bridge loan can be forgiven over a five-year period. this is irresponsible. it is irresponsible not only now, it was irresponsible at the time it was passed by this house, passed by the senate and signed by the president. this is not a loan program but another government welfare program. job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. job losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. the government does not need to be adding additional debt

obligations onto borrowers who are already struggling with their current commitments. particularly when doing so adds to the debt burden of every single american. including those who took out these loans who have to suffer through the process as they are seeing themselves use of a government program that provides not only more debt to the country but tremendous strain on themselves. government was not there to help , they were there to indebt the american people. congress should focus on job creation not welfare and giveaway programs. this is the best way to prevent more foreclosures and to get our economy back on track. the congressional budget office estimates that enacting h.r. 836 would decrease federal budget deficits by $840 million over

the 2011 to 2021 period. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the current dire emergency that we're facing with the state of the u.s. economy. and that american families are struggling. why should the government go and make matters worse? it is our job as members of congress and as legislators to ensure that the policy which is passed by this house has integrity and can be backed up by the full measure of the free enterprise system instead of a government backstop and it is that government backstop that republicans observed to then and object -- objected to then and object to now. we need to make sure that our greatest days lie in our future, not the government handing out checks because the government didn't mind the blank check that

it originally satisfied itself for in this legislation. we should be creating opportunities. we should not be holding back americans from earning not only the opportunity for potential in their future but also for making their life better. eliminating this program will save taxpayers lots of money and encourage more responsible government spending by the federal government. mr. speaker, this was an unwise program, it proved in that way and today republicans are on the floor of the house of representatives to say, we can do the right thinged to -- today. so i encourage a yes vote on the rule and a yes vote on the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my friend and colleague for yielding this time to me. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i certainly want to agree with my colleague, mr. sessions, that what the world is

waiting for is congress to do, to create jobs, we're approaching 100 days here without a single bill to do that. and we certainly look forward to that great day. mr. speaker, it was not that long ago that this country was facing the real possibility of another great depression. the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by reckless decision making on wall street that had deep and painful impacts on hardworking americans everywhere. as a result millions of people lost erg everything. they lost jobs -- lost everything. they lost jobs, retirement savings and homes. all across america families anguished over how to feed their families, how to keep them in fact, how to keep their lives together for just one more day. three years later we're starting to see the signs of fragile recovery. however slowly we have started to see modest private sector job growth over the past few months.

however, we are far from where we need to be in the troubled housing market remains in -- and the troubled housing market remains in complete disarray. millions of americans are unemployed, still struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. millions more are saddled with mortgages worth more than their homes. foreclosures swallowed up a whopping -- whooping 1.2 million homes across the country in 2010, also 900,000 in 2009 and despite the republicans' apparent lack of concern for the ongoing foreclosure mess, many estimate the united states will eclipse previous yearly totals and foreclose on even more americans in 2011. there is overwhelming evidence that everybody knows about that many of these foreclosures were faulty or downright illegal and yet no accounting of this failure is demanded. but the people who lost their

homes have lost it in major ways and have no recourse except some of these bills. these bills obviously need a lot of help. i couldn't agree more. they're not the best we could do . and yet the sad thing to me is that once these four bills are done away with, there is no replacement. and we simply leave americans to function as best they can. if we're a nation that cares whether or not our neighbors are kicked out on the street, it's clear that we can't end these programs designed to lend a helping hand without something to replace them. the emergency homeowners loan program was created to help prevent foe foreclosures that are a result of massive financial hardships caused by unemployment and underemployment across the nation. admittedly some foreclosure prevention efforts in the past few years have not had as much tract as we hoped. and we've certainly had very low cooperation from banks.

they were simply asked to help, not required to. democrats agree that the programs need improvement and support a process to allow for bipartisan collaboration. so it's a shame that we stand here today ready to kill this program before it even gets off the ground or has a chance to help stem the tide of foreclosure. my colleagues on the other side are ready to end the program without offering any solution to what is clearly a continuing problem. but if we don't provide our constituents in need, provide them help, then who? it surely won't be the big banks. foreclosing on our neighbors at record numbers. just today "the new york times" reports that the c.e.o. of bank of america rejected the idea of reducing home loans for americans in need. he thinks that if he has to do it for one he'll have to do it for all. what's fair about big banks reporting record profits by kick homeowners out on the street? what's fair about banking executives walking away from the failed mortgage schemes without

punishment while thousands live in their cars? the audacity to call for a fair modification process after swindling of millions of americans with predatory mortgages and walk away with record profits is simply maddening. yet we stand here today preparing to debate a bill which all -- which will tell american people that we just don't care with so many homeowners still facing foreclosure, we should be focused on ways to improve programs designed to keep people in their homes. many of these families are facing insurmountable odds on their own but with just a little bit of help they may be able to make it through this tough time. but instead of reforming the program today we are eliminating it. i would like to talk a little about the process. today's rule is not an open process. for starters it's a debate on the bill, an amendment cannot be offered because it was not even

printed in time. secondly, if the bill is changed by an amendment, members will not have the ability to respond to change it. this give and take of ideas that is the hallmark of dynamic and regular roadways -- rig louis he -- rigorous debate. the biggest problem with this process is that members who want to reform the program rather than completely get rid of it must find a germane offset which is nearly impossible because the bill completely eliminates the program. in order, any amendment to save any part of it would have to be offset by new money. we agree that reform is needed, members have ideas for reform, alternatives to simply eliminating existing programs. unfortunately under this process these alternatives cannot be offered. i urge my colleaguesen to the other side to work with us -- colleagues on the other side to work with us to improve these foreclosure programs, stem the foreclosure tide and strengthen our middle class. this bill does not do that and i urge my colleagues to vote no on

today's rule and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. by the way, we are working with all the members of congress and that's why we went through regular order which was a new process for this house from the last four years. we also came to the rules committee and allowed an open process and any member that chose to have an amendment be offered today simply had to go and tell us ahead of time that they would like a preprinting notice and they could get that done. that is working together with every single member of congress. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield for such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the housing committee, of the financial services committee, the gentlewoman, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois voiced. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule, house resolution 151, and house resolution 150, the rule for h.r. 830. last week the committee on

financial services considered an and approved two bills. h.r. 836, the emergency mortgage relief program termination act, and h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination act. h.r. 836 would terminate the emergency mortgage relief program and rescind any unobligated balances remaining under the program. the emergency mortgage relief program created by the dodd-frank act establishes a $1 billion fund to provide loans or credited answers to borrowsers who can can't pay their mortgages because of unemployment or reduction in income. to date no funds have been provided to homeowners under this program and serious questions remained about its cost, effectiveness and benefits. the c.b.o. estimates the program will have a 98% subsidy rate meaning that for every dollar loaned thunderstorm program, 98

cents -- under this program, 98 cents is not expected to be repaid. gibbon the country's current fiscal situation -- given the country's current fiscal situation, no program warrants funding when benefits are speculative at best and substantial taxpayer losses are certain. . the other bill approved, h.r. 830, which will be addressed by the rule, h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination act, would rescind all unobligated balances made available for use under this program. more than $8 billion in tarp funds has been setaside with f.h.a. refinance program, and $50 million has been disdis bersed since september, 2010. the extraordinary investment of their money, the taxpayers have thus far gotten very little return. the administration originally estimated this program would help between 500,000 and 1.5

million homeowners. however only 44 loans have been refinanced and only 245 applications have been submitted. this program has been plagued by problems from the start. borrowers are frustrated that few lenders participate in the program and it's difficult for borrowers to even find out if their mortgage servicer has agreed to participate. rather than continue to spend money we do not have on programs that do not work. congress should focus on creating the certainty, job creators need for economic activity and highering. this means we must root out wasteful government spending on ineffective programs such as the f.h.a. refinance program. what the american people want are jobs. not a handout or a program that doesn't work or is ineffective. i urge my colleagues to support the rules for h.r. 836 and h.r. 830 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. i want to agree with, mr. speaker, with the gentlelady from illinois, who just spoke who said what the american people want is jobs. i agree with her. and when we assess the record of the new majority on this issue, i think we have to assess it's found very wanting. this is the 10th week of the new majority. in 10 weeks very found a way to shut down women's health clinics by defunding planned parenthood. they found a way to essentially repeal 30 years' worth of protections for our drinking water and our air and our land. they found a way to pass a

budget that cuts education, that saps strength and energy from our job creators in this country, but they haven't found one bill, one minute, one debate over a plan to work together to create jobs for the american people. i believe, mr. speaker, that the american people want republicans and democrats to come together and figure out and environment that will encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs for our country. the majority has done everything but that. and today is yet another bill that i think is a wasted opportunity in that regard. i view this -- today's debate through the eyes of three constituents i interacted with at home this weekend. one was a gentleman who runs a music distribution company. they produce c.d.'s for people who have written and recorded music and don't have a label yet so they can get the music out there.

he employs 500 people and he wants to grow. and in order to grow he needs people who are fassel with various -- facile with various software. he depends on graduates from our community colleges and four-year colleges and universities, and he didn't understand why the majority wants to cut the -- the maximum college scholarship under pell grants by $845. thereby taking employees away, conceivably from him, by taking them out of school. it's the home builder i met who can't call himself a home builder anymore because he's not building homes. and he wonders what we are doing to try to restore faith and confidence to the real estate market so that americans will feel secure and confident enough to buy a home and put him and his workers back to work. he wonders what we are doing. the gentleman i met yesterday who runs a biotech company that has two employees.

and he depends on contracts from the national institute of health to do research on various pharmaceutical products. he wants to double the size of his company, put just two more people to work, but he won't hire them as long as the threat of a government shut down is imminent. this is the wrong bill at the wrong time on the floor. what we should be doing is coming together, republicans and democrats, to cut spending -- i would ask for an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the gentlelady. to find ways to sensibly cut spending. many of us on the floor, for instance last -- two weeks ago, voted to not send $1.5 billion to iraq to fund their police department. many of us voted not to spend a substantial amount of money to the brazilian cotton institute. many of us voted to say if you make over a quarter of a million dollars a year as a farmer, you shouldn't get crop subsidy.

these are areas that we agreed upon to reduce spending. let's work to sensibly reduce spending but let's not cut education and let's not undermine jobs. by all means let's bring to the floor a bill that says to my friend that runs the music production company, we will help train workers that you need. that says to my friend that wishes he were a home builder, we'll talk to these banks that have record amounts of money in their balance sheets and get them lending money again so people can buy a home. and says to our friend running the small biotech company, you don't have to worry, but there's going to be gaping cuts in the research budget of the national institute of health, we are going to fund them and they are going to continue to pay people to be the best and the brightest and find cures for diseases and you can hire those two more people. 10 weeks, no jobs bill. no jobs plan. no cooperation to produce an environment where small business and entrepreneurs can put

america back to work. let's put aside our differences. let's get to work on solving the real problems of our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm shocked with our friend after friend on the democratic side who say, no jobs bill. no jobs bill. but my friends also recognize what the american public does, that we voted literally the first vote in this house to overturn what is known as obamacare. the massive government takeover of health care in this country that would net lose 800,000 jobs. mr. speaker, the republican majority does have a jobs bill and that is to go and rescind what the democrats have outrageously done and that is to put this country in a diminished position not only with us being

competitive overseas, but also for us diminishing american jobs. we are not going to do a jobs bill to add jobs. we are trying to simply go back and save the jobs that are being lost today and would be lost by wasteful government spending. huge government bureaucracies. so my friends on the other side simply want to come and attack us, while the republicans have it and so do the american people. we are going to stop the outrageous spending. we are going to attack the rules and regulations which are killing not only business but losing jobs all across this country. we as republicans are going to stand up and say, $4 gasoline is outrageous, mr. president. work on the things from your administration that you are doing that ruin jobs, that make sure we have higher gas prices at the pump, and do those things that would help the american

people. the republican house majority is one half of of one third of the body, and we are one third of government. we are trying to do these things that the american people sent us here for. we are all about trying to reduce wasteful government spending. we are going to take on the laws that have been passed by this president and the former two houses, congress -- sessions of congress that were outrageous spending, tax increases, and assault on employers and making it more difficult for the american people to have freedom and diminishing our future. every time one of our democrat friends goes and says, there's no jobs bill by the republicans, the american people will get it. the republicans first have to

save the jobs that are at risk today. 800,000 net free enterprise system jobs that if we do not overturn obamacare that was passed by this body on march 22 a year ago, we are going to leeze even more jobs. the most immediate thing we are doing is trying to reduce wasteful government spending, to try and do away with and attack rules and regulations that will kill the jobs that we have, and to make sure that we are telling the american people that this spending spree that we are on that causes a massive deficit, a hemorrhaging by this government, including last month $230 billion we overspent, then we are doing our job. if we are doing those things, we are trying to save the jobs that we have got. mr. speaker, that is what the republican majority is about. we are not going to let the

democrats get us off our game. we understand what they want. they want to talk about, well, we can look at doing back with some of the spending, but they -- when it comes down to it they can't pick anything they really will support. everything is a sacred cow. everything that we do is a problem if you go and touch it. mr. speaker, the republican party, the republican majority led by speaker boehner and our majority leader, eric cantor, is all about trying to get back to america where we have a balance to where we don't lose more jobs. where we don't add more debt. and we stand up for the american people. that's why we are the new majority party. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: to respond, i'm going to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding.

i have great respect and affection for my friend from texas. he's a valued member of this house and someone who cherishes this institution and represents his constituents well. i would like to respond to two of the points that he's made. first, he makes reference to this 800,000 job loss as a result of the health care act. there is a prediction made before the final version of the ack was put together -- act was put together that predicted that 800,000 jobs would be lost. in fact most economists have argued that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gained, but more importantly, mr. speaker, than predictions, is reality. the health care law was signed into law almost a year ago. i wonder if any one on the majority side can tell us how many jobs the economy has lost in that year. i would be happy to yield.

well, seeing no answer, the record -- happy to yield to my friend. how many jobs has the economy lost since the health care bill was signed into law? mr. sessions: you asked if somebody who knew the answer would stand up. i don't know the answer. but i will tell you is that we will have the taxation start and yet the plan kicks in in 2014, so massive taxation will start and then we'll find out what happens. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. mr. sessions: we are still almost % unemployment rate. i don't see those -- mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey controls the time. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. the answer is the economy has added over one million private sector jobs since the health care law was signed into effect. predictions of great job loss has turned out not to be the

case. secondly, the gentleman made reference to the sort of great opposition to this law around the country. i frankly have not -- ms. slaughter: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. the fact here is that despite this prediction of 800,000 jobs lost, in fact the economy has gained more than a million private sector jobs since this happened. i want to address one other thing he said. he said that our goal is to, quote, knock the republicans off their game. we do not think this is a game. we think 15 million unemployed people is a very serious national crisis and we do not want to play a game. we want to come to an agreement that would create an environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs for the american people. . he mentioned sacred caos. we don't -- cows. we don't think college

scholarships are wasteful spending. we don't think that student loans are reckless spending. we don't think that reading teachers and math coaches for our neediest children is wasteful spending. we don't think that job training grants for people who have lost their job is wasteful. we think that cutting those programs wastes jobs in the private sector. that's why we oppose the reckless budget plan, that's why we beseech the majority, let's get to work on putting americans to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. you know, i stood up and openly said, i have no clue how many jobs have been added, but the million job figure that the gentleman quotes is not a net figure. it's not a net figure. we have lost many, many, many times what we have gained and the net figure means that when you add in what has been added versus what was lost this country's in trouble.

and i think the american people understand this, they understood it last november, they understand it now. people are scared, they're scared about their future, they're scared about their job, they're scared about how much gasoline's going to go up, they're scared about whether the e.p.a. is going to come put some more rules and regulations on them, they're scared about what will happen in the long run, with their job and health care. they see the diminishment of freedom, they see where we are in trouble, not only in our own homes, we're in trouble with our country. they see that we ran a $230 billion deficit last month alone. they see that this administration is incapable of looking at facts and factors and making a realistic choice about now that we understand what's happening, what are we going to do when we're in trouble. the republican party is here and we are not going to be knocked off our game, we are going to go and try and save as many jobs as

we can from the onerous rules and regulation, the excessive taxation and perhaps worst of all the inattention to try and create a better circumstance for this country. so, that's what we're going to do. we're going to go after it, we're going to repeal this obamacare, we're going to stay after the rules and regulations and we're going to make sure that the middle class in this country has the chance to save the job that they have rather than diminishing it. you have seen, mr. speaker, all across this country the states who are in the most trouble have top to bottom democrat-controlled legislatures as well as democrat governors. those states are unwilling to make tough choices, they're unwilling to do the things which would say no to constituencies who are special interests. today the republicans are on the floor of the house of representatives and we're saying not only no to special interests, but what we're trying to say is that we need to use

common sense and balance. and i recognize 14 years ago when i came up here common sense is not common in washington. but today part that have common sense takes place with we're going to read the bills before we vote on them, we're going to go through regular order, we're going to relook at the things which have been passed which diminish jobs and which harm our economy and those are the things which we're on the floor to get done today. mr. speaker, i'm proud of our republican majority, i'm proud of our speak who are is from the great state of ohio, who understands himself personally, because of the state where he's from, that the state of ohio is in need of leadership, real leadership in washington, just as the rest of the country. and so the republican party stands on the floor of the house today, we are about jobs, we're about reducing wasteful washington spending and we're going to stand for common sense. we reserve our time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'd like to yield myself one minute before i yield four minutes to mr. cummings. simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that these bills are unneeded. let me just quote a little bit from the "dallas morning news." home prices down 3.6% in december, 40% of home sales in north texas foreclosed and short sale homes, dallas housing analyst said no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market. they're going to receive $135 million through assistance unless all these bills die and i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of "the dallas morning news" into the record. i mention dallas because that is the district of my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i wanted to point out that there's pain at home. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much.

i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and as i said on the floor this morning and listened to my esteemed colleagues on the other side, i must tell you that i am a bit upset. when he talks about common sense and balance. these are two words, the common sense and balance is something think a talk about all the time as the ranking member of the government reform and oversight committee, we talk about common sense. we talk about balance. and part of common sense and balance is trying to make sure our children are educated. part of common sense and balance is making sure that my neighbor who just died of cancer and i would have to go into my pocket over and over again to give him the money to supplement his

chemo, common sense and balance. common sense and balance is trying to make sure that people have jobs when i appear at my jobs fair in a few weeks it will be just like last year when 9,000 people would show up at 6:00 in the morning and circle around buildings. common sense and balance so that the students at morgan state university will not have their pell grants reduced by $800 when they're struggling right now, they're working, trying to get a job if they can get one, and working, doing the best that they can and it is their turn, common sense and balance, that we don't cut them off. and so as i listen, you know, i think about all of this and i'm trying to figure out how does

the american people make common sense -- get common sense and balance out of what is going on in this house? now, with regard to, i heard my friend talk about regulations, just this morning in a hearing that we had in government reform , we had all of these expects from corporations come and talk about how they wanted to get rid of, quote, job-killing regulations. every one of them agreed with me that regulations are important because they protect the health, welfare and safety of people. and as i told them this morning, i said to them, and i was very clear, i said, when i was a young student, a high school student, and i would go to bethlehem steel every summer to work, when i blew my knows after being there for an hour -- nose after being there for an hour, when the mucus came out it was black.

it was regulation that addressed that and there were men who had been there 40 years who were breathing that every day, eight hours a day. and many of them died early. common sense and regular late, -- and regulate, common sense and balance. common sense and balance and i said to my constituents and i said it to them at a town hall meeting this week. i said, i wish the congress would address issues like we did with our family problems. if you've got a family problem and you've got a daughter or a son who wants to go to college, maybe go to an expensive college , you don't say to them, you're not going to go to college, you find a way to, yeah, cut back on some things. you don't cut back on everything, you don't say to that child, you cannot go to school. because it's now their turn. you just don't turn your back on them.

you don't cut off people's jobs and their training when they're trying to be retrained, when that father who has lost his job is trying to be retrained. i ask for an additional three minutes. can we get it? ms. slaughter: may i inquire how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: absolutely, i yield three more minutes to the gentleman. mr. cummings: and so, you know, common sense and balance. i rise today in strong opposition to this rule which provides for the consideration of h.r. 836, a bill that seeks to kill emergency home owners, the homeowner loan assistance program. this program was created to provide limited low-cost loans to enable borrowers who are unemployed through no fault of their own, through no fault of their own, or who face debilitating medical costs, and by the way, a lot of people say that they will never face these medical costs, well, all of us are the walking wounded. all of us will face difficult

problems. the question is, will america be the america that it's always been? we do not get our authority by might. we get it by the way we treat each other. and so these folks are going through some difficult times, these are the same people that this loan program is about, these are the same people that showed up time after time, sitting in the front row of something i call my foreclosure prevention program, with tears running down their faces. many of them have never missed a mortgage payment, have worked hard every day and have done everything that was required of them. these are our american neighbors, they are the american neighbors that sit in ohio, they're the ones who are in california and new york. those are our neighbors and they are in a time of need and we're talking about a $1 billion program to try to help people as they're struggling, trying to get up after an economy, by the

way, where regulation failed them. they find themselves in these difficulties, in many instances, buzz people were not regulating -- because people were not regulating properly. and, yes, it upsets me. because i go back to a district every night, 40 miles away from here, where people are sad and there are areas in my district where you probably got 25% unemployment. so i care about the jobs. they're important to me. i care about people living and staying in their homes. and so if anything was said by the november elections, it was about we need to sit down and get together and work through people's problems like any family would address family problems. and we must be about the business of making sure that we do those things to have a future . i don't want any child in america, i don't care whether he's in your district, mr. speaker, or anybody else's

district, i want every child to have an opportunity, i want the same opportunities for your children, mr. speaker, that i want for mine. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to inform the gentlewoman from new york that i have no additional speakers and if she is done, we could let her go ahead and offer her close and then i will finish it out. ms. slaughter: i have someone on the way. she's not here. and since you are ready to close -- mr. sessions: i'm sorry, is the gentlewoman wishing to proceed at this time on her close or should i reserve my time? ms. slaughter: i want to wait until she arrives. mr. sessions: i reserve the balance of my time. ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. sessions: the gentlewoman has now yielded back her time and thank you very much. mr. speaker, the facts of this case state very clearly that this nation is being overrun, it's been overrun by too much taxing, too much borrowing, too

much spending. just last month we hit a record deficit, $223 billion. this is unacceptable. the status quo of where we're moving is not acceptable. with the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment as we have heard the stories hovering across the country right at 9% and much higher in many areas of the country, including congressional districts that are hurt even more and i understand this because those who first lose their job many times are disabled people and i understand disabled people and their plight that they have also and it is sad and it hurts us as members of congress and it hurts the american people. the american people asked congress to rein in the spending, to do something about jobs and that's what we're doing. we're not making excuses, we're getting the job accomplished. eliminating this program will save taxpayers hundreds of

millions of dollars. by gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful washington government spending, these handouts that the private sector could utilize and gain confidence in the economy and start doing itself, we could begin investing in jobs and a brighter economic future. i apraud my friend from texas -- i applaud my friend from texas, mr. hensarling, in bringing this legislation and to the chair of the rules committee, the young chairman, david dreier, favorite son from california, david comes here and so ably runs our rules committee for us, we thank them for providing an open and transparent process. i encourage a yes vote on the rule and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> the house continues to work on this bill tomorrow at noon eastern. online coverage begins when the house -- and at 10:00. the house homeland security committee holds its hearing on the muslim american community tomorrow. beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. we will have live coverage on c-

span3. tonight, a house hearing on federal worker pay and benefits. later, a hearing about the new fcc net neutrality rules. >> more than a hundred years ago, he left china on a steamboat bound for america. he worked as a domestic servant in washington state. a century later, his grandson will return to china as america's top diplomat. >> the current commerce secretary has appeared on c-span over 60 times. just one of over one under 15,000 people you can search for and watch any time on line at the c-span video library. it is washington, your way.

>> a house oversight and government reform subcommittee held a hearing today examining the pay and benefits of federal workers. according to the oversight committee estimates, public- sector wages increased at almost twice the rate of private sector counterparts between 1999 and 2009. witnesses at this hearing include john berry and calling kellie. this is two hours. we will probably have to take a break between 2:00 and 3:00. reconvened for the specific purpose of continuing our testimony.

hopefully, we will able to get the first panel. i will call the committee to order. i will read the mission statement. we exist to secure to fundamental principles. americans have a right to know that the money in washington is well spent. americans deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight committee is to protect those rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. we are here to discuss whether federal employees are adequately compensated. i will begin with my opening statement.

i will defer to ranking member for his. according to the opposite of personnel management, the average salary for federal employees was $74,311 in 2010. the average private-sector owned $50,462. the federal government also pays an average of 36% of the employee based health insurance and pension benefits in addition to the generous paid leave separate federal employees on average earned $101,628 total compensation in 2010. four times more than the average private-sector worker. the members of the subcommittee recognizing our talents and workforce perform critically essential functions throughout the government on behalf of our nation. we appreciate their service. federal employees should be compensated fairly. current federal salaries are not

in line with the marketplace when compared to private a workforce compensation. at a time when our economy is in a recession, the contrast between government and private- sector pay is struggling. the federal government has no incentive or obligation to reduce salaries in order to be competitive. it can simply borrow more money or raise taxes. with federal spending and unemployment at or near record highs, this hearing presents an opportunity for lawmakers to year important testimony from our specialists on how best to address the growing disparity. compensation of private-sector employees has not kept pace with those of federal employees. federal workers receive generous benefits. vacation, health insurance, pension plans, retirement savings, and disability pay. these benefits greatly exceed those of a normally provided to

private sector work force. last november, president obama announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees. the pay freeze did not impact salary increases driven primarily by the passage of time or bonuses. president obama pay freeze was not really a freeze. according to the euro of labor statistics, the federal government grew by 157,000 people from december of 2008 to two dozen 10. -- 2008 to 2010. the unemployment rate hovers around 10%. our taxpayers can no longer be asked to foot the bill for these federal employees by watching their own salaries remain flat and their benefits erode. congress has an obligation to consider all reforms that overhaul federal compensation, reduce costs, and better align with the private sector. i think the witnesses for appearing today.

i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for their attendance. good afternoon. the topic of today's hearing regarding federal employee compensation requires us to review the way we are paying are federal employees and revealing the pay levels and benefits they receive. this topic has generated much debate. we should conduct a robust overside -- oversight. we owe the u.s. taxpayer full transparency in this area. the debate over federal employee benefits predated the 1883

enactment overhauling the patronage system. i'm quite confident that this debate will outlive the service of our committee. federal employees are not immune from our nation's economic and fiscal challenges. i understand the sacrifice called for up with the two-year pay freeze. we need to be careful not to get caught up on the over simplistic comparison between private sector and federal jobs. a recent article pointed out that when comparing the jobs, the clearest pattern to emerge is in education divide. the most reliable facts in predicting compensation levels is a level of compensation -- the level of education. when comparing private and public sector occupations, the clearest path -- pattern is more pronounced in recent decades.

today's workforce is highly educated, with over half working in the nine highest paying professional occupations and the country. it is also a workforce marked by a blue collar workers. the federal employees are a more professional level of the employee. the contract out most of the blue-collar jobs, the lower paying jobs. that is why we did a discrepancy when comparing federal employees to the general public. in light of the two-year pay phrase, -- pay freeze, today i am introducing my bill for cost transparency into the federal programs. this bill will lower federal

employees' out-of-pocket spending and the program is operational costs. i look for a to hearing from our distinguished witnesses assembled here today. -- i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses assembled here today. thank you. >> thank you. members have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. i will now welcome our first panel. john berry, all with mrs. must be sworn in before their testimony. please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to get will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? but the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. please limit your opening statement to five minutes. we do have your testimony and we are grateful for that.

>> thank you, chairman. it is an honor to be here with you today. i appreciate the opportunity. i believe that the members of the subcommittee and die and all federal employees share the goal of making government more efficient while improving services. i look forward to working together with the to accomplish that. president obama said, i did not think it does any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. we need to attract the best and brightest to public service. our time demands it. our need for great workers could not be more clear. federal employees hold lives in their hands and of receipt large sums of taxpayer dollars. we need talented and innovative people at the department of defense. we need great doctors and nurses are veterans hospitals. we need tough men and women at

the department of justice and homeland security to protect us from another terror attack. it is just a fact that in order to get these workers, we must provide pay and benefits on par with other large companies for whom we compete with talent. we cannot and should not be the employer of last resort. despite the complex challenges we face, of federal civilian work force is virtually as small today as it has been throughout the modern era. in 1953, there was one federal worker for every 78 residents. today, it was one for every 147. the comparisons of average pay between federal and private- sector employees often can ignore the important differences between the skill levels, complexity of work, scope of

responsibility, size of organization, location, experience level. even comparisons that purport to compare employees in the same occupations can sometimes be misleading. some claim that federal attorneys make more than private-sector attorneys. in fact, while more than half of our general attorneys and the federal government are in less than $90,000 in their first year of service, the median first- year salaries for comparable attorneys the private sector is $145,000. federal coax may seem overpaid until you consider that many of them worked in our prison system. they supervised inmates in a very dangerous the environment. the federal government also provides an array of benefits. but while we need to do this to be competitive, these benefits are not free to our employees

great employees share in the cost of those benefits. they wonder% in many cases. for help but if it, enrollee's share 30% of the premium cost preyed for dental and vision, they wonder%. for life insurance, they pay 66% for the basic premium. for long-term care, they pay 100%. i would also like to note that congress and president reagan reforms are benefits 25 years ago. this has avoided the struggles of state and local governments are now going through. those reforms guarantee that our first retirement system is financially sound and fully funded. bottom line, this administration is committed to providing a superior service the american people expect and deserve. managers and employees that are not doing that to be held accountable and ultimately fired. there should be no place for

nonperformers to hide. our pay system is not perfect. it is six decades old and could use a re-examination. we are required by law to reduce all the comparisons to one average number. this is not perfect and does not reflect the complexity of the workforce. even so, we must reject this leading -- misleading uses of data that perpetuate the myth that federal employees are overcompensated correct they are not. our wages and are benefits are fair and our competitive. any reforms be undertake must meet the following principles. our existing system does well. transparency, equal pay for equal work, no political influence, and the ability to recruit and retain the work force we need. this is how it must be if we are to recruit and retain the best workers.

falling behind is not acceptable. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. januaryresident's report, issued a 22% difference between federal employee pay and private-sector pay. did that include benefits? >> no. that is focused specifically on the page. >> subsequent to your testifying, federal pay premium of 14% and combine the benefits of 33% and there are nearly 25% above those in the private sector. federal employees earning full compensation 40% greater comparable to the private sector workers. do agree with their findings?

>> absolutely not. >> why not? >> if we will stay with compensation, i am happy to look at them together. it will be easier for keep them separate for a moment. in comparisons are based on -- the federal workforce is now a very skilled white collar workforce. it used to be over a third of our workforce was blue collar. less than 10% is today. we need to compare the federal government would like to like. they go into literally every locality and they will compare entry-level, midlevel, and senior level career for each position. they will look at an engineer, for example. they will find a job in the private sector that is almost

duplicates. the private sector does not use the system. this is very exhaustive and expensive. the work that you will hear from the next panel, they did not have the resources to do that. the statistics does that on an annual basis. we are getting a real comparison of like the job is to like jobs. the average is you will hear about are looking at the total labor force. the primary jobs in the private sector are retail clerks and service workers. we do not have those in the federal government. those that we do are generally provided on a contract basis. that average pulls down the private sector in number. when you compare engineer to engineer, a lawyer to lawyer, doctor to doctor, what it shows consistently is that federal employees lacked the private sector. >> is that correct?

>> no, sir. working in the federal government, our mission is long- term in nature. it should be for any employment. people go to employment for careers. when you look at fiscal year 2010, the rate was one place 5%. the layoff rate was 0.3% the you have any opinion as how that would compared to the private sector? >> i efforts of misinformation from some folks talking about the federal government does not have a retention problem. let me give you doctors and nurses. in to thousand five, we hired 2000. as of today, we have lost 2300. i have a retention problem. talking tot we're employees, one of the biggest concerns is the fact they are

underpaid. >> speaking as the whole federal work force, we're only looking at one place 5% rate. -- 1.5 tons -- 1.5% rate. you talked about a highly skilled occupations. are there any circumstances were federal employees are paid above the market? >> absolutely. i did not mean to represent when i said the 22% pay gap that does not apply to each and every job that is a gross average. some employees are paid more. some are paid less. some are paid the same period to get that number, a clear majority are paid less. there are some that are paid more. >> how many days of paid leave

are federal employees entitled to? >> it varies based on years of service. i will provide that to you. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, director barry. this is to dozen aides -- 2008 to 2010. you would think that employment went up. i went back and i got the numbers. i was surprised by that number. i went back and calculated the number of separations.

the number of people left the federal government. we had to undergo 6000 leave in 2010 -- we had to doesn't -- with a 2600 leading to a dozen 10. -- 2010. while they are saying that they -- there has also been a reduction of 616,000 employees that left. that speaks to the argument of job security. these were the deaths, firings, retirements, all combined. i think it provides a wider picture. much has been said of the lack of performance management,

mainly its inability to appropriately abort performance. i think it was because some of those concerns -- weeks. -- we experimented with an alternate pay system. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars employing the new system. oddly enough, we had 0.8% of people who usually are rejected for increases under the old system. under this new system, 0.2% were rejected. with the new system, we had less people did disciplines or rejected for their increases. it seems like the managers were

doing the same thing under the new system as they did under the old system. i am curious if you think that is a viable alternative. >> i think you hit on two points. first, the congress repealed and the defense department has been moving back into the system. if you think that their pay for performance system was going to save the taxpayer dollars, what we found is that 20% of the workforce is on retained pay. they are making more than they would have made had a dent in the schedule. they will stay frozen until the schedule catches up. that is a big number. the second point is that it goes to something i have learned and the two years on the job here and working on this, i spent a

lot of time looking at a performance. i have concluded that it is more important to focus on performance side of the equation first. get that right. good performance is based on the three key things. i would not sit here and tell you that we do it well. organizational mission and goals, down to the individual employees and performance. managers and employees regularly having conversations. are we on track or off-track? when not a plan to get back on track. if they're not back on, -- that is a good performance system. we can do that. what i am going to do and what we just did yesterday, we have created a working group made up

and shared by two career senior executives. it will not have political bias. they will report in on what we can do to tighten and strengthen our performance system. if we get that right, then we can have a discussion about pay. we can avoid repeating the same mistakes rubbermaid. -- that were made. >> thank you. we have recognized the distinguished gentleman from utah. >> thank you for being here. my understanding is since the time barack obama took office there is a net increase the federal employees is 157,000 additional federal workers. >> there is an increase. about 75% of those of been comprised in hospitals, home and security, justice department.

>> the net increase is roughly 157,000 additional workers. you plan to hire an additional one under 25,000 -- 125,000. what that number is has been overtaken by the president's budget. it shows that number stay flat for three years. >> he has increase the compensation level in his budget by 2.5%. roughly, $6 billion. by the additional $6 billion? -- why the additional addition up -- why the additional $6 billion? >> i would need to understand better exactly what you are referencing. >> between to those 11 and to a

dozen 12, based on the executive branch. -- 2011 and 2012 based on the executive branch. the reality on a pay freeze is that the nets did not say that the american taxpayers' money. that number is actually growing. >> the pay freeze is a cost-of- living adjustment that is a definite savings. it saves over $28 billion. >> it will cost the taxpayers more. taxpayers will pay more for federal employees as whole this year as opposed to the year before. >> have the president not frozen pay -- >> what is concerning to many of us is that the president -- he

has frozen and will pay adjustment for two years. it gives the impression that we will not spend more money on personnel. you are hiring additional people. they are somewhat offended because their pay is frozen. >> in the president's pay freeze, he directed to report back to him on a program that will address and deal with bonuses and the incentive programs. the office of management and budget will be doing that in short order. you will see that the numbers will change. >> based on a letter that you gave to this committee on february 16, 779,000 people actually got awards. over 63% of the federal workers

actually got awards. why so many people? at a time when people are losing their jobs? >> 2.1 million size work force, the average number is below $1,000. these are not the wall street bonuses that people are used to when they think of a bonus. these are recognizing outstanding performance. >> that is 63% of federal workers said got a bonus. there are a lot of people out there losing their jobs. they do not understand the president says we will have a pay freeze, and then you are handing out bonuses. it does not make sense. how much money are you going to give away in bonuses? >> it works out to be between 1% and 2% of payroll. >> what is the dollar amount? >> i will have to give you the exact number.

>> my understanding is that more than three-quarters of the 1.4 million a general schedule employees will get at least one pay raise between 2011 and 2012. >> it is a legitimate concern to be addressed. one of the things that we can take back to this working group is -- >> is that a fair number? do you dispute that number? >> i would presume -- i trust you. >> the time has expired. we will take a recess and reconvene at 5 minutes after our last motion in about a half an hour. thank you.

>> i appreciate everybody's indulgence. i would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from washington, d.c. -- gentlewoman from austin, d.c. for 5 minutes. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for adjusting your first sentence. the very high quality technology knowledge level of the workforce. i will guarantee you that there

was almost no information when you hear what federal employees means that you are talking about engineers, scientists, a nuclear plant inspectors. less than a third of private- sector workers fall into this category. the apples to bananas comparisons have grown tiresome. what was interesting to me it was the extraordinary reduction in the federal workforce. since the end of world war ii. one federal worker for every 78 residents in 1953. one for every 147.

how much of this represents our productivity of federal workers? how do you account for that kind of production -- reduction per- capita? >> productivity is a big piece of that. one of the reasons the workforce has got more sophisticated is the they had to do more with less. did you have people who could handle the technology. -- they needed to have people in a good handle the technology. you need highly skilled people. these are billions and billions of dollars they are accounting for. take medicare, for example. 20% of the federal budget is medicare. it is administered by .002 of

the federal workforce. the efficiency rate, being able to deliver those payments accurately, it is a combination of highly skilled workforce and technology and productivity improvement. >> one of the things that both democratic and republican presidents have done over the past decade is to do more and more contracting out. the obama administration seems to be going in the opposite direction. expecting to save $40 billion annually. by reducing the number of contract workers do they save us or cost us? >> it is a little on both sides of the ledger. i do not want to fall into the

same track of gross average answer. some cost us more overtime. some cost us and have tree savings. >> if there is over time, you can keep track of it. do you keep track of the productivity -- what to do about the contract and workers? >> we do not track that. i, unfortunately, do not have that. >> it is very difficult for us to understand a federal work force that has more contract workers than federal employees when the focus is on federal employees and most of the workers, including workers to work at home, are contacting. why would a contract it employee work alongside a federal

employee? >> i can give you a good example in my agency. what are essential government functions? opm does 90% of the background investigation for security clearances. we do that with about 2000 government workers -- >> can i ask you one question? collective bargaining and the federal sector, our workers do not bargain for paid dances. is that so? >> they cannot. >> is there any reason why anybody would want to pull back on collective bargaining? >> the head ministrations are strong supporters of the partnership approach. -- the administration is a strong supporter of the partnership approach. partnership approach. we are